DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/2/2026.
The specification was received on 4/30/2026. This specification is acceptable.
The drawings were received on 4/30/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation ‘the cover engagement portion” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 being dependent on claim 10 is also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 3,234,965).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson teaches a connector (figure 2) comprising:
a first connector portion 1 defining a connector volume (volume of element 3), a luer opening (opening in element 3a), a mating opening (opening in element 3b near element 18), an engagement portion 26 extending radially from the first connector portion 1, and a sliding portion (axial sleeve of element 30 extending parallel to element 31) coupled to the luer opening (opening in element 3a) by a housing end (end of element 30 where element 35, 37 is shown in figure 2),
wherein the connector volume (volume of element 3) is in fluid communication with the luer opening (opening in element 3a), the mating opening (opening in element 3b near element 18) and a lumen (hollow portion inside element 30, fluid communication exist when fluid flow out from element 3a, 3b and enters into hollow portion of element 30 when element 30 is pushed down and element 1 is not connected to element 2) of the sliding portion, wherein the engagement portion 26 comprises a lip portion 25 configured to releasably engage an engagement finger 27 of a second connector portion 2 and prevent release of the lip portion 25 from the engagement finger of the second connector portion (column 4, lines 25-33).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson teaches the second connector portion 2 defining a second connector volume (volume of element 2), a tubing opening (opening in element 9d) and a second mating opening (opening at element 28), wherein the second connector volume (volume of element 2) is in fluid communication with the tubing opening (opening in element 9d) and the second mating opening (opening in element 28), the second connector portion 2 defining one or more engagement fingers 27 configured to engage the engagement portion 26 of the first connector portion 1.
Regarding claim 19, Anderson teaches a connector (figure 2) comprising: a first connector portion 1 defining a connector volume (volume of element 3), a luer opening (opening in element 3a) and a mating opening (opening in element 3b near element 18), wherein the connector volume is in fluid communication with the luer opening (opening in element 3a);
a second connector portion 2 comprising defining a second connector volume (volume of element 2), a tubing opening (opening in element 9d) and a second mating opening (opening at element 28), wherein the second connector volume (volume of element 2) is in fluid communication with the tubing opening (opening in element 9d) and the second mating opening (opening in element 28), wherein the first connector portion 1 and the second connector portion 2 are configured to be separably engageable (column 4, lines 21-33) and the mating opening of the first connector portion and the second mating opening of the second connector portion are in fluid communication when the first connector portion and the second connector portion are in engagement (see figure 1); and
and a sliding portion 5 with a housing end (end of element 5 that is opposite to element 4) that extends through the luer opening (opening in element 3a) and a cover portion 30 that selectively surround the first connector portion 1 and the second connector portion 2 and prevent (column 4, lines 25-33) release of the first connector portion and the second connector portion 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9 are allowed.
Claims 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record, Anderson (US 3,234,965), is silent regarding a sliding portion comprising a luer end, a housing end that extends through the luer opening of the connector body, a lumen in fluid communication with the housing volume and extending between the luer end and the housing end in combination with other claimed limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2, 3 and 5-11 being dependent on claim 1 are also indicated allowable.
The closest prior art of record, Anderson (US 3,234,965), is silent regarding the sliding portion is rotatable relative to the engagement portion between a first position and a second position in combination with other claimed limitations of claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1, 14 and 19 have been amended to include allowable subject matter from claims 4-9 and therefore, these claims are allowable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 14 and 19 do not include each and every limitations of the allowable subject matter and therefore, claims 14 and 19 are rejectable under the prior art as explained in the rejection above in the current Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILAY J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-9689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHELSEA STINSON can be reached at 571-270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NILAY J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights